IMPORTANT POINT
The court confirmed that to convict for abetment of suicide, clear evidence of instigation or intent must be established, which was not proven in this case.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the impugned judgment and order dated 7.9.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Bhuj (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 65 of 2008 whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 306 etc. of the Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short)

2. Brief facts of the present case, in nutshell, are as under:-

2.1 The complainant Aminaben wife of Ramjan Harun Bhatti, was residing at Kera village and her husband was doing labour work. Aminaben was married with the accused Ramjan Harun Bhatti, 15 years prior to the incident, as per the rite and customs of their community. She was having three sons and one daughter and she was having two sisters. Her husband was doing labour work, sometime he did not go to labour work and did not get sufficient money hence, quarrel took place between the complainant and her husband very often. Therefore, the complainant informed at her parental home to her brothers about the same, but her brothers convinced her to live with her husband. However, her husband was causing mental and physical harassment to her.

2.2 On 6.06.2008, when the complainant cooking food, at that time her husband came from outside and told that why she had gone out and by saying so he beaten her by stick. As she could not tolerate the said harassment from the accused she was induced to commit suicide and had committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and set herself on fire.

2.3 Thereafter, brother of complainant took her to the Hospital and then she declared dead. Thereby, the accused has induced the deceased to commit suicide and has committed offence punishable under Section 498 [A], 323, 504 & 306 of I.P.C.. Hence, the complaint was filed being C.R. No.I- 231 of 2008 against the accused husband at Bhuj Police Station.

3. On the basis of the FIR, investigation was carried out and after thorough investigation as there was sufficient evidence against the respondent- accused, charge sheet was filed before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhuj. As the offences committed by the accused person was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions as per the provisions of 209 of Cr.P.C., the Learned Judge has committed the case to the Court of Sessions and the case was transferred and placed for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Bhuj, which has been numbered as Sessions case No.65 of 2008. Thereafter, charge was framed against accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498 [A], 323, 504 & 306 of I.P.C. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution therefore, laid evidence. The Prosecution, for proving the charge against the accused person, has examined 12 oral witnesses as well as produced 17 documentary evidences on the record of the case.

3.1 After going through documentary as well as oral evidence and after hearing both the sides, the trial Court has acquitted the accused person vide order dated 7.9.2009 passed in Sessions Case No. 65 of 2008 from aforementioned charges.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal.

5. Heard Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhatt learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr. Pathik Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - accused at length.

5.1 Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State of Gujarat, while referring to the entire oral as well as documentary evidence, has assailed the impugned judgment and order and has submitted that the trial Court has committed serious error of law and on facts both, while passing the impugned judgment